| 3:28 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Here's a couple of previous topics that were discussed.
| 3:47 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm really glad to see a topic like this! I want to take advantage of the feature rich environment that ASP.NET offers on the programming side but, I am not yet versed in the language of ASP.NET and cannot effectively navigate and/or manage ASP.NET pages.
I've worked on a few ASP.NET projects and at the time, I was not impressed with the final output at the browser. For one, ASP.NET generates vast amounts of non-valid IE specific code. That in itself prevents me from migrating.
Two, ASP.NET was difficult for us to work with from a rewrite perspective. Populating title elements, meta descriptions, etc. is not done in the "standard" way that I'm used to.
Three, I do a lot of surfing. Rarely do I see aspx extensions in the results. That may not mean anything and I may not be searching for something that is on an aspx site. But, I find that difficult to believe as I do some very broad searching.
Four, ASP.NET made it almost impossible for me to edit pages with my WYSIWYG Editor. I am now able to edit those pages but I have to be very careful in what I do. One wrong move and wham "Application Error".
Those were just a few things that stick out in my mind. I've seen the power of ASP.NET and I'm impressed. But, I'm not impressed with the final output at the browser. I'm also inclined to believe that with all of the IE specific code, some ASP.NET sites may not work in all browsers.?
| 10:33 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
All of what you said is true and, with all the hype, you'd think everyone was using .NET but it's not true. XUL would be a good choice since it will run on Firefox and Camino and any gecko browser, but not IE unless MS let's it. It's code output is standard code, too.
| 10:46 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Take a look at ASP.NET 2.0, it renders fully XHTML code...
Your concerns about the non-XHTML code was very valid with v1.0/v1.1 mind you.
| 11:05 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
<edit> nevermind, stepped away from the Post Reply screen for a while, and sharbel wrote the same thing</edit>
| 2:49 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A neighbour borrowed my vaccumn cleaner the other day. When he returned it, he said it was the most useless machine that he'd ever used. It turns out that he didn't know how to use it properly, it wasn't like his old one.
Perhaps he'd have had better results by asking me how to use it rather than giving up on it and discarding it as rubbish.
| 5:08 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The only real problem in dotnet 1.x, which has been largely resolved in 2.0 was that you needed to tweek the HTML a bit when you had finished the page layout. Especially things like uppercase and pascal case tags and attributes, which used to be an MS thing (still is in certain circumstances.)
If you are going to switch to dotnet then go straight for version 2.0 where you can select your chosen doc standard and verify as you code.
| 6:34 pm on Feb 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What I don't understand about asp.net is that it can produce valid xhtml but IE can't use it. So, what's the point?
| 12:36 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have found .NET to be more beneficial with regards to SEO. Much, much more beneficial.
As for xhtml. Not saying anything mean but maybe you're trying to use it the wrong way. Maybe there's another way to product xhtml that's easier/less cumbersome than the way you are trying to produce it now.
Basically you can do anything with .NET, usually 4-5 different ways. Sometimes you will find hiccups doing it one way. If you are relying on the 'Drag-n-Drop objects from the Toolbox, you're probably not going to be happy. Usually your own hand-coded forms/objects will outperform .NET's canned objects anyday.
| 2:27 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I have found .NET to be more beneficial with regards to SEO. |
me too. I built a blog application with asp.net and never gave one single thought to seo while doing it either. The result is that I've been able to rank on just about any thing that I blog about. And that's without obtaining any inbound links whatsoever.
| 3:30 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No. Microsoft has already stated, and this is well known, that IE does not now and will not in IE7 support XHTML. It doesn't work in IE, period.
|Not saying anything mean but maybe you're trying to use it the wrong way. |
Well, no. If it doesn't work in Firefox then the code is botched. IE is too full of bugs and errors to work without adjustment of standard code. The developers mantra is "Design using Firefox, then adjust for IEs quirks and bugs."
|Use IE and it looks fine. Firefox and it's botched. |
I don't know how this could be since no one knows, specifically, what search engines are looking for except the usual, basic methods. In that case, notepad can do the same thing.
|I have found .NET to be more beneficial with regards to SEO. |
| 3:58 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|IE does not now and will not in IE7 support XHTML. It doesn't work in IE, period. |
So what. Why does anyone need xhtml anyway?
|If it doesn't work in Firefox then the code is botched |
balogny... you're just attempting to distract anything pro ms
[edited by: jatar_k at 1:26 am (utc) on Feb. 22, 2006]
| 8:39 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|don't know how this could be since no one knows, specifically, what search engines are looking for except the usual... |
I'm not saying .aspx is beneficial. I'm saying the coding advantages are above and beyond classic ASP
| 10:08 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
XHTML is the replacement for HTML. Visit W3C for that and more information.
|Why does anyone need xhtml anyway? |
I am not distracting from a pro MS statement. The "pro MS" statement is false. I defy you, or anyone else, to say IE is more standards compliant and has fewer display problems than Firefox. In fact, visit Microsofts IE Blog and listen to lead developer Chris Wilson say it. He apologizes that IE7 will not be more standards compliant, that he is aware of their lack of compliance and that Microsoft has to work on that more than they have in the past. So, to call my statement baloney is to say Microsoft is baloney, which they are, but I won't say that.
[edited by: jatar_k at 1:28 am (utc) on Feb. 22, 2006]
| 11:17 pm on Feb 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Getting technical with the differences between IE and Firefox quickly turn to apples and oranges. Yes, IE is a web browser, but it's also an intrical cog in the Windows operating system. Many MANY applications have been built (long before Firefox was a twinkle in anyone's eye) that utilize the extensive relationship between Windows and IE.
Due to the depth of integration that companies (yes, Fortune 500 companies) used to build their intranets and internal applications, you can't just flip a switch and break everyone all at once. You'd have pure anarchy in the corporate world, as nothing would work for them anymore. I give Microsoft props for even getting this far, this fast. Soon enough they'll regain their #1 status (in the public eye) as top browser, and these inane browser war conversations will end.
And how will they do that? Soon enough, everyone will essentially have the same display engine (as everyone will need to abide by W3C standards) and in the end, it's exposure that wins the battle. By supplying 95% of the world's desktop operating systems, they can shove that new and improved browser down everyone's throat and everyone will turn into owls... "Firefox WHOOOOOOO? Firefox WHOOOOOOO?" For the record, I'm a die hard Opera user, and open IE only when I need to view my WebTrends stats (which is another case of an IE only product).
[edited by: jatar_k at 1:33 am (utc) on Feb. 22, 2006]
| 1:32 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
as much as the boards needs another IE vs FF thread, that is neither the topic or of any relevance to this thread
".NET Affects on SEO"
I have little experience with .NET but everything that I have been shown has given me the same thoughts as pageoneresults.
"I'm not impressed with the final output at the browser"
| 3:35 am on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
OK, MS lovers or not, I always hate to hear the MS bashing because I know the stuff works and it scales when it's done right. Wrong and you're a duck on my pond when scalability becomes an issue. I have seen 10 wrong approaches for every right approach in the last few years. I was part of a team to develop a MS-based website capable of processing over 50,000 consumer transactions per day (not visits, conversions) and multiply it a few times for all the added multi-threaded data crunching/movement along the way. The thing was huge and it works. It works well, ASP/SQL Server done right.
|I have little experience with .NET |
|I am not yet versed in the language of ASP.NET and cannot effectively navigate and/or manage ASP.NET pages. |
I'm not very experienced with PHP and I'm sure a site I developed using it would be trash.
I have, however, been working with .NET since it came out and the longer I use it, the more I love it and the more efficient my code base is becoming. My objects are truly becoming 'objects' and are used easily from page-to-page and from site-to-site.
I do not really use the .NET 'controls' and that is usually where people's unhappiness with .NET starts and ends. I create my own User Controls and control the HTML output myself, not relying on .NET to produce HTML. The true Object Oriented nature of .NET is so powerful. It's C+ on a webserver and is lighting fast and extremely flexible.
If you don't know how to code in it and want an 'easy' way, then .NET is probably going to be more of an obstacle than a benefit. If you are a true 'coder' and understand the object oriented world, well, the possibilities are virtually endless. I continue to find better ways to do stuff the longer I work with it. I can't recall not being able to do anything yet with the power of .NET but there is large learning curve and really no benefit if you don't have any object oriented background (or not willing to study up for a year or so)
| 12:27 pm on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Why does anyone need xhtml anyway? |
|XHTML is the replacement for HTML. Visit W3C for that and more information. |
XHTML for the most part is HTML is XML form.
All future version of HTML will be in XML, so in that respect, you are correct in that it is a replacement.
However, there are no significant improvements in XHTML. I is to all intents and purposes, just an XMLised HTML4. It's more a technology to represent the transition than anything else. It doesn't warrant widespread adoption.
Most people using XHTML at the moment, from what I've seen, do not take advantage of the extra functionality that the XML dimension offers. All they're actually doing is limiting their user base and would be much better off with HTML4
| 12:30 pm on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I do not really use the .NET 'controls' and that is usually where people's unhappiness with .NET starts and ends. |
I agree with you here. It seems to be mainly the Visual Studio kiddies that get most of the problems.
You have to learn and understand a language/platform to get the most out of it. Drag and drop programming just doesn't cut it.